Reduction-in-Force Is Viewed as an Administration Attack on E.D.

Washington--A plan by the Reagan Administration to eliminate more
than 100 positions in the 5,200-person Education Department, and to
reorganize certain offices, has prompted criticism from members of
Congress and from the union representing department employees.

The reduction-in-force, which would affect personnel who administer
the Chapter 1 program, vocational education, migrant education, impact
aid, Indian education, and the women's educational equity program, is
characterized by Administration officials as a way to eliminate
"top-heaviness" in the management ranks and to meet personnel ceilings
imposed by the fed-eral Office of Personnel Management.

But House members have charged that the planned staff reductions are
the first step in an attempt by the Administration to eliminate the
department through administrative procedures, after the Congress
refused to do so legislatively. The department, they pointed out, has
already lost 25 percent of its staff since President Reagan took
office, mainly through a hiring freeze, retirements, and attrition.

Program Reorganization

At a hearing earlier this month, Representative William Ford,
Democrat of Michigan, told a panel of Administration representatives
that "one person's reorganization for managerial efficiency is another
person's reorganization to do away with a program."

And Representative Mary Rose Oakar, Democrat of Ohio, singled out
the Administration's opposition to the women's program. The
Administration sought no funds for the program last year and is
proposing to reduce the staff from eight to five.

"You want to eliminate the program, and you're charged with managing
it. That is the blackest of ironies," she said.

Charles Heatherly, deputy undersecretary for management, called the
charge "ludicrous." He admitted that he was "convinced" that the
women's program should be eliminated, but maintained, "My personal
philosophies have no bearing on my carrying out my job."

By Sept. 18, the plan would eliminate 42 of 272 positions in the
office of elementary and secondary education, 18 of 143 positions in
the office of vocational education, and 51 of 169 positions in the
department's 10 regional offices.

Although those offices would lose 111 staff members, the department
would also gain 169 other staff positions, in the offices of
postsecondary education, the inspector general, civil rights, the
general counsel, and intergovernmental affairs.

Mr. Heatherly said that, because some of the staff members who held
the eliminated positions could apply for the new positions, the
reductions should be viewed as a "rational realignment of staff
resources, not a budget-driven reduction."

Minimal Job Loss

Lawrence Davenport, who heads the office of elementary and secondary
education, maintained that fewer than 50 staff members would actually
lose their jobs when the reduction-in-force was completed. He added
that his office currently retains 41 employees whose jobs were
eliminated last year, as well as 12 employees whose positions were
eliminated this year when the career-education program was folded into
the block-grants program.

Union officials concede that some reorganization is necessary.
Maryann Nelson, president of the employees' union, told the Washington
Post recently that "there is a top-heaviness in some of the
programs."

And John L. Martin, the union's shop steward and an employee in Mr.
Davenport's office, said that only 42 employees lost their jobs in
February 1982 when more than 100 positions were eliminated.

Nonetheless, Mr. Martin maintained in an interview that the
reductions represent "classic doubletalk: 'In order to hire we must
fire."'

Further, he said the reductions would hamper his office's ability to
travel to states and school systems to review their administration of
federal programs, a procedure known as "compliance monitoring."

"The possibility of money being misspent because of lack of
direction is real," he said. "Without the compliance reviews in the
future, there will be significant audit exceptions."

Mr. Davenport, in an interview, said his office "can do as much
monitoring with less staff. Over 44 percent of the positions to be
eliminated are supervisory people who don't do the monitoring," he
claimed.

Another employee, who asked not to be identified, criticized the
reorganization plan that would follow the reduction-in-force in the
fall. The plan groups positions by "function"--a method Mr. Davenport
described as more efficient than the current organization by
program.

Under the plan, management personnel of certain programs--which the
Administration considers to be "top heavy"--would be transferred to
other programs within the office.

The employee said the Administration can use the plan to fire
employees it deems troublesome--such as the director of the women's
equity program, Leslie Wolfe.

Although Ms. Wolfe declined to comment, other sources said the job
description for her position would be rewritten to exclude its current
emphasis on expertise in equity for women. Because Ms. Wolfe has no
seniority, she could be "bumped," or replaced, by a more senior
employee from another program.

Mr. Martin says the transfers would be "disruptive" and "wasteful."
"Personnel with years of experience in [Chapter 1], migrant education,
or Indian education" might be "placed in organizations" with which they
are unfamiliar, he said.

Mr. Davenport denied that Ms. Wolfe was the target of the
reorganization. He added that he found the federal reduction-in-force
procedures inefficient, but that he "had no choice but to go by time
and grade and veteran status."

The chairmen of the education subcommittee of the House Education
and Labor Committee and the investigations subcommittee of the Post
Office and Civil Service Committee said they will continue to
investigate the situation when the Congress returns from its
recess.

Notice: We recently upgraded our comments. (Learn more here.) If you are logged in as a subscriber or registered user and already have a Display Name on edweek.org, you can post comments. If you do not already have a Display Name, please create one here.

Ground Rules for Posting
We encourage lively debate, but please be respectful of others. Profanity and personal attacks are prohibited. By commenting, you are agreeing to abide by our user agreement.
All comments are public.